On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:> Hi.> > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:> > > Hi.> > > > > > I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm> > > wrong)..> > > > > > Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management> > > implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not> > > putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?> > > > > > to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than> > no device driver at all, right?> > I'm not sure it is. It only makes more work for everyone else: We have> to help people figure out what causes their computer to fail to resume> (which can take quite a while), then get them them complain to driver> author, and the driver author has to submit patches to fix it.> > All of this is avoided if they'll just do it right in the first place.> > > now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair> > That's probably a good idea too, since I'm only suggesting this for new> drivers.

I think if CONFIG_PM_DEBUG is set, the core should warn about drivers nothaving .suspend or .resume routines.

Greetings,Rafael

-- If you don't have the time to read,you don't have the time or the tools to write. - Stephen King-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/